The Faculty Lounge

Another Anniversary Passes: Tulsa Riot of 1921

Well, it was 87 years ago today that the Tulsa Tribune story hit the streets and ignited the Tulsa riot of 1921.  The story--called by the Oklahoma City Black Dispatch "the false story that set Tulsa ablaze"--said that "Diamond" Dick Rowland, a young black man, had tried to assault a young white woman in an elevator the day before.  After that, white people gathered at the courthouse, where Rowland was being held.  They'd come to see a lynching and maybe participate in one.

Meanwhile, over in Greenwood, the black section of Tulsa, veterans of the world war met in a back room of the "Dreamland Theater" with a newspaper editor to plan how to stop the lync hing.  Their trip to the courthouse to stop the lynching later that evening resulted in a struggle.  Immediately it turned into the riot that led to the destruction of the black community.  Along Greenwood Avenue in Tulsa this evening the ghosts of 1921 may be walking again, reliving that tragedy....

Alfred Brophy

Do We Execute Mentally Ill People Or Just Put Them To Sleep?

From Sentencing Law and Policy, Texan Scott Panetti has been found competent for execution by Judge Sam Sparks in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  He was convicted of killing his wife's parents.  The problem is that Panetti clearly has a mental illness.  Panetti made the following comments to prosepective jurors as he represented himself during voir dire:

The death penalty doesn’t scare me, sure but not much.  Be killed, power line, when I was a kid. I’ve got my Injun beliefs as a shaman. I sent the buffalo horn to my sister.  Adjustment, Jesus wrote. I was born in the North woods in a reservation hospital and my granddad was a justice of the peace and he sobered up the doctor and the doctor was half sobered and they delivered me and my mom had a bad sickness in her milk and they wondered why I wasn’t dead, and a lot of beatings I took from the kids that show me had prejudice, which I don’t have any prejudice, and they said this about me in the newspapers in the beginning, but I don’t love Injuns and Mexicano, and Mexicano know, but I suffered a lot of reverse prejudice from Colored people, which is rare, darn rare, but I was named “He who doesn’t cry” because I didn’t cry when I should have, and I must admit, though, in Gillespie County Jail when I was in my little suicide box where there was an old boy committed suicide, I went through about a week of pretty much scuba diver’s tears; although, I don’t scuba.

It's not like there is much debate about whether Paretti was "faking" his insanity; in the ten year run-up to his crime, he'd been hospitalized a dozen times for  schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, psychosis, auditory hallucinations, and delusions of persecution and grandiosity.  This isn't a regular guy who did a bad thing.  Ask yourself how many people you know with a similar clinical history.

In Panetti v. Quarterman, the Supreme Court held that he could not be executed unless he understood the reason he was facing death. Fair enough.  But trial details like these - and you can find more in the petitioner's brief in the case - really do bring up deeper questions like: why is a person in this condition allowed to represent himself; if he is to represent himself, how can we justify execution as a sanction for the crazy things that happen during trial; does such a trial meet social expectations of fairness; and more generally, is it right for the state to kill a person whose brain functions like this?

The Court has never held the execution of people with mental illness to be unconstitutional.  That's hardly an easy solution anyway.  Such a rule would force courts to face more of the complicated line-drawing debates that have made the the mental retardation issue so tough after Atkins.  But there is something wrong here.   To me, at least, it looks like Texas simply wants to put Panetti to sleep.  If so, the least the state can do is follow national veterinary standards for the practice.

Nineteen Years

Nineteen years passed between the California Supreme Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Lippold and the US Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia.  Nineteen years before the Supreme Court caught up with California, and recognized that when it comes to marriage, both love and the Constitution are in fact color-blind.  Nineteen years between California's bold move to recognize a right to inter-racial marriage, and the Supreme Court's mandate that every other state do the same.   

It may be another nineteen years before the Supreme Court follows California's lead this time and rejects the pure irrationality - and animus - behind discriminatory marriage statutes that allow only heterosexuals into the club.  Nineteen years before the image pasted above is seen as nothing more - and nothing less - than a tender moment that marks a milestone, rather than an "abomination to God" that invites an incalculable quantity of hate mail to my in-box.  Nineteen years, perhaps.  Fourteen if we're lucky - tracking back to Massachusetts.  But it is inevitable.  The only question is how much havoc and heartbreak we'll have to endure in the meantime.

But today we're moving in the right direction.  Today, the New York Times reports that Governor David Paterson had called upon state agencies to revise their policies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of New York.  So far the list includes places like Massachusetts, California, Canada, Spain,  Belgium, The Netherlands . . . .  and ultimately more to come.  Ironically, New York itself does not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.  But there too, especially in light of Paterson's directive, its only a matter of time.

And that's worth celebrating.

-Kathleen A. Bergin 

Ohio State Dean Nancy Rogers Named Ohio AG

Mostly we report on law school deans who join new law schools.  Today, however, we learn that Nancy Rogers - dean of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State - is leaving OSU to serve as interim Attorney General of Ohio.  The position (previously held by Marc Dann) will go up for election this coming November and Dean Rogers does not plan to seek office permanently.  Here's hoping she listens to her sage colleague Doug Berman when it comes to criminal justice policy!

H/T... Doug Berman

Weed Deliver: Tokyo Customs Official Fumbles A Marijuana Plant

Seems that the customs folks at Narita International Airport, in Tokyo, aren't ready to win the war on drugs.  Last week, an agent delivered five ounces of cannabis into the bag of an unsuspecting flier.  His goal was to test whether the sniffer dogs on duty would detect the drugs.  It appears that the nosey canines were less than successful at their assigned tasks.  Worse, the official forgot which bag had received the planted pot.  The upshot?  Some unsuspecting traveler presumably discovered a healthy stash in his or her valise.  The government is asking the passenger to return the weed but this request appears to be a pipe dream. 

I'm getting older.  I'm entitled to a pun now and again.

Harper Lee Before Atticus Finch: Witty Chain Smoking Red?

Jessica Lacher-Feldman, from the Hoole Special Collections Library at the University of Alabama, recently unearthed some fun old clippings from the collection.  It seems that Nellie Harper Lee,  author of To Kill A Mockingbird and an Alabama icon, was once the editor of Bama's student humor magazine, Rammer Jammer.  In an October 8, 1946 article in the Crimson White, Alabama's student paper, Lee is described as "a law student, a Chi Omega, a writer, a Triangle member, a chain smoker, and a witty conversationalist."  We learn that "her Utopia is a land with the culture of England and the government of Russia; her idea of heaven is place where diligent law students and writers ascend after death and can stay up forever without benzedrine."  It's hard to know which parts were serious Nellie and which witty Harper.

The article concludes: "As for literary aspirations she says, 'I shall probably write a book some day.  They all do.'"  Surely an understatement for the ages.

Uncle Sam Wants: Vegans?

 Look out, kid. Apparently, the FBI is recruiting “friendly personable” youngsters to infiltrate vegan potluck suppers – those simmering hotbeds of sedition -- to gather information about possible RNC protests.

One young man approached by the FBI was told he had the right “look” to fit in among the quinoa-sharers (unfortunately, no photo was provided with the article). He was also offered compensation, but only if his information led to an arrest – hey, a new way of going “green.” The article notes that this tactic echoed back to the convention that took place in NYC, during which the NYPD Intelligence Division spied on various protest groups, including some undoubtedly dangerous theater troupes. I agree that bad theater can be upsetting, but I never thought of it as a threat to the nation. I suppose that shows that I have a lot to learn.

 So, when I’m browsing around the seitan at Whole Foods, which I do regularly, I’ll be doing more than wondering whether to get the seasoned or the “regular.” I’ll be on the lookout for a man in a trench coat (badge out, laid off), wondering if I have the “look.”

Obama Adopted by Crow Nation

In Montana, Barack Obama made a speech to the Crow Nation, proposing a renewed recognition of the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government.  He also proposes increased funding for tribal colleges and Indian health care.  To oversee this support, he proposes a full cabinet post for Indian Affairs, a step far beyond the BIA, which he calls a "bureaucracy that doesn't know anything about what's going on in the day to day lives of people."

Why We Fight

As today's Memorial Day, I thought it would be the right time to honor someone who gave her life for democracy over 60 years ago.  Milada Horakova was a Czech freedom fighter, democratic MP and campaigner for women's rights, who battled against both the Nazis and the Communists.  On June 27th, 1950, she was hanged by the Communists on trumped-up charges of treason and espionage, despite appeals for clemency from world figures including Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein.

A new opera in the Czech Republic shines the spotlight on Horakova's show trial, using her own words decrying the brutalist regimes of facists and dictators:

"I have declared to the State Police that I remain faithful to my convictions, and that the reason I remain faithful to them is because I adhere to the ideas, the opinions and the beliefs of those who are figures of authority to me. And among them are two people who remain the most important figures to me, two people who made an enormous impression on me throughout my life. Those people are Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Edvard Beneš. And I want to say something to those who were also inspired by those two men when forming their own convictions and their own ideas. I want to say this: no-one in this country should be made to die for their beliefs. And no-one should go to prison for them."

On this day, especially, we should remember Milada Horakova, along with all the Americans who gave their lives to preserve democracy and our way of life. 

Solove's Advice for Entering the Teaching Market

Well, I'm in the office on memorial day packing.  I'm adding to my series "this is why", a new one: "this is why it's so difficult to recruit laterals."  (No one who's moved recently will ever want to go through it again!)  The disruption of moving is, well, extraordinary.

So, taking a little break from packing... over at co-op Dan Solove (author of books that people read on subways!) has ten pieces of advice for people who're thinking about law teaching.  I think it all characteristically very sound--and even for those of us who've been in the business a while. 

I don't want to restart the great phd war of 2005, but I would like to add one piece of advice: think very seriously about a phd in a discipline allied to law (such as economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, history) or perhaps an MBA.

Of course law teaching jobs are always going to be hard to come by.  There are what, 180 or so law schools.  Even if each one hires two people a year, that's not a huge number of openings.  And in many years, many schools hire no one.  So I often encourage people to think about what it is that they like about the idea of teaching.  If it's the teaching part, look in places beyond law schools--like business schools and even community colleges.  If you enjoy teaching (or think you would), there are a ton of teaching opportunities out there.

When Dining and Dancing Insult Democracy

Remember back in 2003 when Representatives Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-NC) insisted that cafeterias in certain House office buildings change the name of "french fries" and start selling "freedom fries" instead?  Remember - they were responding to France's plea that weapons inspectors be given more time in Iraq, and that a US-led invasion was premature. 

France.  What do they know?

Anyway, thumbing through the Dothan Eagle as I sometimes do, that is, the March 26, 1948 edition, I  came across this headline: Mississippi Balks Move to Outlaw "Missouri Waltz."  Apparently, lawmakers wanted to make it a felony to play or dance the waltz anywhere in the state.  First offenders would receive a $1,000 fine and a prison sentence of not less than 5 years.  Use a piano and the fine increased to $10,000 and life in prison.  Gheeze.

The background here is that the measure was introduced after President Truman called on Congress to pass comprehensive civil-rights reforms, including "communistic measures" as the Southern Block referred to them, like anti-lynching and anti-poll tax laws.  Truman was from Missouri.

Funny (well, not really) how absurdity spans the ages.  But at least the 1948 proposal to ban the Waltz was ruled out of order by the House Speaker.  "French fries," at least for a time, came off the menu.

Anyone know if "french fries" are back?

-Kathleen A. Bergin

   

Governor Paterson's Immigration Reform

Governor David Paterson did something very laudable on Friday: he pardoned hip-hop artist Ricky Walters who had previously been convicted (and served time) for attempted murder.  Under federal immigration law, Walters - who was born in the UK but moved the New York at age 11 - was subject to mandatory deportation for his offense.  He would be forced to leave his family and return to a country that has not been his home in 30 years.  As a result of this pardon, he is at least eligible for a deportation waiver; the decision to deport him is now discretionary.   

Why was this decision laudable?  Because I believe deportation decisions should always be made case-by-case, rather than under mandatory directives that strip officials of the ability to assess individual situations.

But here is the problem.  Walters is the tip of the iceberg, and a pretty famous tip at that.  Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of individuals are similarly situated.  These are adults (and even teenagers) who emigrated to the States as kids and have no identity other than as "Americans."  They have been convicted or various types of crimes - some more serious, some less.  Under federal law, however, they are often subject to mandatory deportation - and are returned to a place that simply is not their home.  I wonder if the Governor is prepared to do his small part to modify federal immigration law by pardoning each of these offenders, and allowing each person to make his or her case to immigration authorities.  Then I'd be seriously impressed.

I've blogged before about the collateral consequences of conviction, and this is one of the nastiest. Remarkably enough, there is no requirement that a lawyer or judge inform a defendant that a guilty plea might result in this punishment consequence.  You can bet that whatever immigration bill passes this winter, there will be no relief for convicted offenders.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the price of compromise is an even more draconian approach to the matter.

Electioneering in the Wild West

So Tuesday was an exciting day for Oregon—the MSM actually focused their flickering and fickle attentions on our Democratic primary. Obama’s win was a surprise to no one—but here are some more subtle points that were lost in the general coverage:

1. It’s pronounced Or-i-GUN, not Or-e-gone.* There’s nothing that marks you as a sissified Easterner more than mispronouncing the state name. I’m talking to you, Chris Matthews! 

2. How cool is it that our new Attorney General is a lawprof?! Congratulations to Lewis and Clark’s John Kroger, who won despite televised smear ads muttering about his very recent     admission to the Oregon bar.

3. All of Oregon’s ballots are mail-ins; there are no voting booths or polling places. This may be the way of the future, but it does take a little of the fun away. I miss that satisfying clunk of the lever in old-fashioned voting booths. On the other hand, you don’t have to worry about rain depressing turnout, a real issue in the Pacific Northwest. 

4. This being Oregon, where quirkiness is prized, there are still serious pockets of Ron Paul     supporters. For some reason they feel the best way to support their candidate is to march up and down themain thoroughfare, waving signs and ringing bells. Perhaps they’re trying to collect gold? I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron Paul got a few percentage points in November through a write-in campaign.

5. Finally, it’s only appropriate that Portland, home to a substantial microbrewing culture, has just elected none other than Sam Adams as its new mayor. As a new Portland resident, I’ll drink to that!

*nb:  Another oft-mispronounced word, Willamette (as in the Valley, the wine, and the law school) rhymes with “dammit.” We’re thinking of making it part of our official motto….

Spivack on Law in Hamlet

Thanks to Mary Dudziak, I see that Carla Spivack's new article on Law in Hamlet is up on ssrn.  It looks downright terrific.  Here's her abstract:

Many readers have noted the abundant references to law in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Indeed, a whole sub-genre of criticism has developed around the question of whether Shakespeare's knowledge of law, as reflected in this play and others, is detailed and extensive enough to indicate legal training. These critics, however, have so far lacked scholarly backgrounds in Early Modern English literature and culture, and thus fail to connect the legal language and themes of the play to its other concerns about gender and rule. By the same token, literature scholars writing about the play have lacked backgrounds in English legal history. Bringing both perspectives to bear, I show that the play's legal allusions are closely related to its other concerns about gender, and that these themes in turn partake of changes in the broader culture, namely, the end of the forty-year reign of Elizabeth, a woman ruler, and an ensuing backlash against female political power. In sum, I will show that placing the play's legal references in context reveals that they are part of a process of ejecting the feminine from the political realm.

All of this reminds me again how common references to law were in literature, at least through the middle of the nineteenth century.  You may recall that I wrote recently of Emerson talking of the warranty deeds and landscape.

As for inheritance law in Hamlet--soon I'll be talking about a paper that Stephen Davis and I are writing about inheritance in antebellum Greene County, Alabama--where some of the wealthiest people in our country lived--and its implications for our understanding of shifting attitudes towards inheritance.

Alfred Brophy

A DA Who Wants To Deport Crime Victims

Ron Wright, over at Prawfs, has flagged down an amazing letter from a DA explaining why he won't prosecute an assault case involving both a complainant and a defendant who were in the country illegally.  After suggesting that the two of them ought to have been grown up enough to avoid fighting, particularly given their improper immigration situation, and telling them he has referred both to ICE for deportation, he concludes:

Once deported to your country, you will be free to fight with each other on a daily basis, and since you both speak Spanish, you will be right at home in the court system of your native land.

Gay Marriage: John McCain's 2008 Confederate Flag Moment?

Take a look at John McCain's face during his interview with Ellen DeGeneres today.  She confronts him about his view on her right to marry the woman she loves.  His answer, fresh from a can, is that they have a respectful disagreement about whether gay people should be allowed to marry.  Except that when you watch him you can see he's squirming.  But why is he squirming?  Would Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee squirm?  No - because they feel good about their view on this issue.  Not only does McCain appear to realize that his comments diminish Ellen's humanity; it strikes me that he doesn't even seem to believe them.  And if he loses in November, I won't be at all suprised if he changes his position.  Who'd have thunk he'd later call his Confederate Flag flip-flop an "act of cowardice"?

I do know this.  McCain's presence on Ellen's show was designed to telegraph something.  Possible somethings include: a) I'm not so doctrinaire that I can't sit next to a lesbian who plans to get married and wish her well; b) I'm actually a liberal on this issue, but I can't admit it in words so I'll telegraph it through my actions; c) I'm going to show my conservative base that I can appear in Ellen's lair and stand up to her demand that I support gay marriage.  I frankly doubt (c); I think that McCain risks appearing like he is appeasing gay rights activists by even speaking with Ellen. 

I can't imagine that Obama wants any part of this conversation either because many of his supporters would gag at the sight of him parotting McCain - which is what he'd presumably be forced to do.  Or he'd say: "I think it's wonderful that you've chosen to live in a state that shares your view of marriage.  I respect California's decision."  And many of his supporters would think: "Dammit, Barack, can't you just say gay people should be allowed to get married?"

Alas, the Kabuki Theater which we all accept (because, really, there is no option) requires this expedience.  But for social conservatives, a chill wind blows.  A couple of years ago, I thought widespread gay marriage was still a generation into the future.  With California's Republican governor backing it, and McCain barely able to utter his opposition, I'm now betting that a bundle of large states will authorize it within a decade.  My hope, however, is that it will be legislators - not courts - that usher in this new era. 

What’s the World Coming To, Part II

In addition to gay marriage, gay soldiers and unisex bathrooms comes the fourth horseman: transgendered elementary school students. A recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer told of a school district in the suburbs that had called a school assembly to help third grade students understand and accept that one of their classmates would be wearing girls’ clothes and answering to a girl’s name. It was certainly heartening to hear that most of the children who knew the child in question received the information with a somewhat blasé shrug of the shoulders, but, not surprisingly, some of their parents were less accepting. I suppose that this means that many of the children will soon absorb their parents’ prejudices, which is a shame. Some parents posted outraged comments on the local blog and there was an editorial in the Inquirer in which the author said she would “pray” for the transgendered child, but also suggested that the transgendered child be home-schooled (yes, that’s right, alienate her and isolate her, that’s what Jesus would do).

I was pleasantly shocked that a suburban school district in Pennsylvania would take such a healthy, tolerant and informed approach, even happier that the child has parents who seem to care so deeply for her and are willing to accept her for who she is. I don’t think this would have happened 20 years ago, much to the detriment of the child in question. Apparently, the school district officials consulted psychologists and a transgender organization, TransYouth Family Allies, to help them devise the assembly. 

On the local blog, one parent astutely pointed out that most people have no problem with girls wearing pants, which used to be considered “boys clothes.” Indeed, the word “tomboy” is becoming an arcane term as the accepted behavior for girls widens. But the same expansion of acceptable behavior hasn’t happened for boys – for some reason (hmmm, what could it be?) it doesn’t sit right with some parents to have a biological boy come to school in a dress.  Most parents who opposed the assembly seemed concerned that their children could not understand gender issues at such a tender age – an argument that seems to me to support the idea of an educational assembly, as opposed to looking the other way and hoping no one notices.

Overall, I believe that the tolerant and educational approach of the school district signals an evolution in our thinking about gender, a broadening of acceptable dress, behavior and naming for people of all genders, and a rejection of a rigid binary approach to gender. But it is pretty clear that some people will refuse to evolve.

A Crisis In Sexual Orientation And Gender? Or Just Bashful Bladder?

This has been one lousy week for social conservatives.  First the California Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage in America's largest state.  (For non-lawyers, note that this decision will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court because it involves California state law - for which the state's Supreme Court is the final arbiter.)  Then the Ninth Circuit slammed the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, holding that the government must prove this policy "significantly furthers the government’s interest [in cohesion] and whether less intrusive means would achieve substantially the government’s interest. "

Paul Secunda, over at Workplace Prof, is "absolutely giddy" over the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  Bob Ellis, a Dakota blogger, says "apparently a full-court (literally) press against normal human sexuality is under way."  Art Leonard, commenting over at Secunda's place, provides a cautionary voice, noting that because the Ninth Circuit panel was a tad liberal, its decision may get crushed en banc.

Ever vigilant, Focus on the Family has bigger fish to fry: they worry that Colorado, in the name of transexual rights,  will soon adopt a new law prohibiting single sex restrooms.  (And well trained in the fear tactics so recently used before the Supreme Court, they argue that the demise of single sex restrooms would lead inexorably to the rise of sexual predators in these places.)  I actually think Team Dobson has a finger on the pulse of America.  If Americans had to rank these three horrors - gay marriages, gay soldiers, and co-ed potties - they'd definitely put co-ed potties number one.  It's difficult enough for many patriotic Americans to pee next to someone of their own sex.  (Note to Barack Obama: here is your small-ball strategy.  Standing tall for single sex restrooms could be your version of the Bill Clinton school uniform crusade.)

This leads me to wonder whether John McCain, who vacillates between being a straight shootin' moderate and a pander bear, will follow the traditional GOP "divide and conquer" strategy that has worked so well since Richard Nixon.  It's always nice - and so unexpected - to see consistency from anyone in politics. Bob Barr, the soon-to-be Libertarian presidential nominee, and ardent opponent of gay marriage, issued a  notable statement after the California Supreme Court's ruling.  It's after the jump:

Comparing Caffeine In Soda

Count this among the questions that I never thought to ask: does house brand soda - Publix Cola, Sam's Cola, Diet Dr. Thunder, and the like - have different caffeine levels than name brands?  I'd long assumed that coffees were dosed very differently - and my assumption was correct.    One study showed that Starbucks coffee contains 56% more caffeine than the drink you buy at a local gas station or donuteria.   But it turns out that the same is true - indeed more so - when you compare name-brands like Coke to house brands.  According to Caffeine Content of Prepackaged National-Brand and Private-Label Carbonated Beverages, some house brand sodas have less than half the caffeine of name brand products.  Others have far more.  IGA Cola came in at less than 5mg of caffeine in a 12 ounce serving; Big Fizz Cola, from Rite Aid, contained 46mg.  The big names?  Coke had 33 mg, Pepsi had 39 mg, and RC had 45 mg.  The Diet versions can be quite different from their parent product; Diet Coke, for example, has 46mg.  And yes, Mountain Dew really is stronger, coming in at 55mg per can. 

If you're a caffeine addict, these small differences could matter.  A person who drinks 4 Pepsis per day taps 156 mg of caffeine.  If you're in a cash crunch and go with Piggly Wiggly Cola, you'll only rack up about 50 mg.  Your punishment for poverty?  A whopping caffeine withdrawl headache. 

For coffee drinkers, this is all child's play.  One tall cup of Starbucks drip coffee will earn you 260mg of caffeine.   Indeed, one cup of Seattle's Best decaf tested by Consumer Reports contained 29 mg of caffeine - almost the same as a Coke.

Faith Based Prisoner Re-entry

Alabama has a problem.  Its prison system releases 11,000 prisoners each year and there's no money to help them with the challenges of re-entry.  If you're a governor who has already been severely chastised once over proposed tax increases, how do you solve this problem?  Bob Riley has an idea: ask churches to provide the services.  This, according to the Birmingham News:

Leaders from churches and charitable groups were asked to provide a wide range of services to former inmates, including employment assistance, housing, clothing, health care and cash.... "If we can motivate the faith-based community in the state the way we do during an emergency, then we can make a difference," Riley said.. Bill Johnson, director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, said the state releases 11,000 inmates a year and isn't capable of providing the services necessary to help them readjust. Even if the state had the funds, such programs aren't popular with taxpayers, he said.   The state will provide no direct funds to the program, called the Community Partnership for Recovery and Re-entry, but will coordinate the efforts of the churches and other volunteer groups.   "We're admitting we can't solve the problem," Johnson said.  At a meeting that vacillated between policy seminar and revival, state officials outlined their needs to religious leaders, who said they view the program as an opportunity to spread the word of God.

I suppose the state should be commended for recognizing, at the very least, that such transition programs are essential.  But outsourcing them to churches is at best a band-aid.  And here (unlike in the national Faith Based Initiative conversation), religious leaders are quite explicit that their interest in these programs is tied to an opportunity to evangelize. 

As unpopular as these programs may be, policy makers must recognize that the cost of (effective and non-criminogenic) incarceration includes pricey re-entry assistance.  Without it, the state will have to bear the expense of sky-high recidivism rates.  In my view, if you can't afford re-entry, you can't afford prisons.